05-10-2012, 03:55 AM
Yes, but another requirement for the M855 is for it to be armor-piercing, with the steel penetrator. My experiences over 3 different regions of the world, not counting several Stateside assignments, with M855 are admittedly anecdotal, and non-scientific. That said, every 5.56 injury/death I have seen had brutal wound characteristics unlike other rifle cartridges, and the guys who have been stacking people to the sky with them for decades don't complain about M855-to the contrary, they prefer it.
Asking a bullet to perform to the most damaging possible threshold on flesh, and then asking it to penetrate light armor is a tall order, which is why reducing the velocity and increasing the weight stretch it in both directions even further. LMG: I want penetration, high SD, and great terminal performance on hard targets. Assault rifle: Lightweight, high capacity, low recoil, flesh blaster.
Even if I were to interview a scientifically accepted baseline number of infantry soldiers who have actually been in fierce contact, the percentage of them that have actually cognitively aimed, fired, and knowingly hit an enemy will still be a small percentage of that total number. Any one of their impressions, preferences, and insight as to what a good assault rifle cartridge would be is almost useless, except for the fact that they all will want it to be lightweight and low-recoiling.
This is why I lean to the experience of guys in units who are involved in almost exclusively direct action encounters, where they have decided where, when, and how they will be, in-fact, killing enemy targets. Their perspective on small arms capabilities and limitations is much more practical, and they are much less affected by new, cool toys from enthusiastic contractors looking for a sell. Their response to this issue usually involves a suggestion to go to the range more often, with very high standards for marksmanship performance.
Asking a bullet to perform to the most damaging possible threshold on flesh, and then asking it to penetrate light armor is a tall order, which is why reducing the velocity and increasing the weight stretch it in both directions even further. LMG: I want penetration, high SD, and great terminal performance on hard targets. Assault rifle: Lightweight, high capacity, low recoil, flesh blaster.
Even if I were to interview a scientifically accepted baseline number of infantry soldiers who have actually been in fierce contact, the percentage of them that have actually cognitively aimed, fired, and knowingly hit an enemy will still be a small percentage of that total number. Any one of their impressions, preferences, and insight as to what a good assault rifle cartridge would be is almost useless, except for the fact that they all will want it to be lightweight and low-recoiling.
This is why I lean to the experience of guys in units who are involved in almost exclusively direct action encounters, where they have decided where, when, and how they will be, in-fact, killing enemy targets. Their perspective on small arms capabilities and limitations is much more practical, and they are much less affected by new, cool toys from enthusiastic contractors looking for a sell. Their response to this issue usually involves a suggestion to go to the range more often, with very high standards for marksmanship performance.